[Hacksaw]

So could you build it in Fenton, asked Frawley, and draw the complex boundaries to fit the definition of adjacent? Yes, answered Bauman.

That is some kind of BS !

[bubbaramfan]

The dog and pony show gets around don't it?

[BuiltRamTough]

Pretty much how Ray Hartmann figured it would go down, so far anyway...

Yup, the mayor and the city obviously want a new stadium. The money is coming from hotel taxes. But the judge isn't stupid he knows that. You think he didn't read Hartmanns article or he's not as smart as Hartmann?

I'm not worried about the funding in STL. I think they'll get it done. It really doesn't matter, the Rams are sill going to move. It's in the hands of the NFL not the city's. Everyone rest easy.

[bubbaramfan]

Wait a minute. I thought they were extending bonds that built the ED to pay for the new stadium? Isn't that what the lawsuits are about?

[TSFH Fan]

So, tomorrow, June 30, there's supposed to be a hearing in the lawmaker's lawsuit for a preliminary injunction . . . and for other things. The last time I posted about this (last week, on another site), they moved the hearing date back a week. Hoping for a different result this time.

[TSFH Fan]

Ok, the hearing for preliminary injunction (and other matters) occurred in the lawmakers' lawsuit and the judge has taken the matter under submission (i.e., he's thinking about it):

Judge weighing Missouri lawmaker lawsuit over Rams stadium
http://www.komu.com/news/judge-weighing ... s-stadium/

JEFFERSON CITY (AP) - A Missouri judge is weighing whether to allow the governor to sign off on plans to build a new stadium for the St. Louis Rams.

A state lawmaker argued Tuesday in Cole County Circuit Court that Gov. Jay Nixon and officials who oversee the current Rams stadium are overstepping their authority.

The governor and others want to keep the Rams in St. Louis or attract another team if owner Stan Kroenke moves the franchise to Los Angeles, which could happen as early as 2016.

A group of Missouri lawmakers sued Nixon, saying he was misusing taxpayer money to plan and promote a new stadium.

Lawyers for Nixon were looking to dismiss the case. Judge Jon Beetem didn't say when he would rule on the case.

[Hacksaw]

Well just about anything could happen here. Beetem [beat- 'em] is in a tough spot too. He either sides with what I've heard our StL bro's call the "invisible voters" and put's a real kink in their and stadium planning, or he will go against all StL Rams fans and that general feeling county/state wide, that it' better to have the Rams in StL. He won't be getting a ton of atta-boy's from his constituents.
Other than those who like to have a say in how their tax dollars are allocated.

BTW I hope he rules on August 12 or after...

[Elvis]

http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/arti ... Ax.twitter

Nixon's role in St. Louis stadium financing plan debated in court

JEFFERSON CITY • Attorneys tangled in court Tuesday over whether Gov. Jay Nixon is merely a cheerleader for a new football stadium or is illegally spending money on a scheme that will commit taxpayers for decades.

Nixon is asking the court to dismiss him as a defendant from a lawsuit filed by six state legislators challenging the use of public funds for a new riverfront stadium in St. Louis.

A governor-appointed task force has estimated that building the $985 million stadium would require at least $400 million in public money. Most of the subsidy — about $250 million — would come from extending bonds used to build the Edward Jones Dome, where the St. Louis Rams now play.

Representing the governor, Deputy General Counsel Andy Hirth of the attorney general’s office told Cole County Circuit Judge Jon Beetem that Nixon has violated no laws by making statements and issuing press releases outlining the stadium proposal.

“These are all things the governor has done, but they’re speech,” Hirth said. “They’re not any legal action that the governor has taken and not any action that we believe this court has the authority to constrain.”

Echoing that position was Chris Bauman, representing the Regional Convention and Sports Complex Authority, which runs the Dome. “All you see is, the governor stood behind a podium that used the state seal” while promoting the stadium, Bauman said.

Rep. Jay Barnes, R-Jefferson City, countered that Nixon has said he is in charge of the project.

“The governor has publicly announced on many occasions that this is what they’re going to do,” Barnes said. “I believe ... that he means what he says.”

Beetem sounded skeptical that the governor had illegally spent public funds. Why can’t legislators say, “You can take the charge card to the store but I’m not paying it?” the judge asked.

Because the stadium would already be built when the first bond payments would come due, and the state’s credit rating would be on the line if the state didn’t pay, Barnes said.

Barnes put it more bluntly in court documents. The governor is putting “a financial gun to the head of future legislators,” Barnes wrote.

If Nixon’s plan proceeds, state taxpayers will be on the hook for $12 million a year until 2048 — 24 years longer than needed to pay off current Dome bonds, Barnes said.

That prompted Beetem to ask: “I don’t understand why someone didn’t say, ‘Hear me now, there’s no money.’”

Replied Barnes: “The fact is, the Legislature did say that,” initially inserting in the state budget a ban on using money for a new stadium. However, in late-night negotiations, then-House Speaker John Diehl, R-Town and Country, “insisted” on deleting that restriction, so it was struck, Barnes said.

Barnes, an attorney, is representing himself and the other legislators who filed the suit.

The suit alleges that the Nixon team’s plan violates a 1989 state law requiring any stadium to be adjacent to the Cervantes Convention Center, restricting repayment on the bonds to 50 years and preventing refinancing that would increase the Dome debt.

Beetem did not say when he would rule on the governor’s motion.